From: Doug Murphy Subject: Review: GameFix #7: The Big One: The War in Europe 1939-1945 Even though I am not getting any main from this list (God knows why), I will send this off into the void in the hopes you may find it interesting. Query: What do Strategy and Tactics, Command, and GameFix magazines have in common? Answer: Timothy J. Kutta. The prolific Mr. Kutta, who is fortunately an excellent writer, has three articles in this issue of GameFix, adding to his very nice piece on the Ia Drang in the latest S&T and his regular features in Command. GameFix magazine #7 arrived a few days ago and I've had a chance to go over it in detail. The game is a remake of Paul Bank's design of an introductory game at the strategic level on the European theatre of the Second World War for 3W of many moons ago: 2 WW. This is one remake that unfortunately is not a great improvement on the original. Articles include Jon Comptons latest ruminations on marketing, letters from subscribers, Kutta's Battle Briefs, a short chronology of WWII in Europe (nothing new there), the game, an excellent review of industry news by Kutta, an editorial by Kutta on military reality on wargaming that decries the lack of the concept of reserves in gaming (a similar pet peeve of mine), a jocular interview by Kutta of Richard Berg, and Ye Gods! Another review by Dave Woods in which he reviews himself and Miranda's S&T design: On to Moscow. A updated game design is always tricky because there is something out there to which you can compare it. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, this does nothing to improve on Bank's original ziplock design (except in the graphics department). Bank's original game was introductory. Very introductory. Along the lines of SPI's Strike Force One, GDW's Battle for Moscow, and some of the SPI folio games. It was one game that was truly playable (for an experienced player) within 3 minutes of pulling out the pieces. More on the original: 100 counters. 11x17 map. Very simple rules. My thousands of games of that design usually find the Axis overrunning Europe and facing off against the Russians who overwhelm them in the end with the help of the Americans who (with or without England) force a 2-front war which the Axis can't win. In the original design, the game play is completely dictated by the number of random allies the Axis pick up. On to the new design. 120 counters, 1 map with more detail and color than the original. Europe stretches from Ireland to Saudi. Sequence of play: strat warfare (bombing, anti-convoy), production (new and repaired units), Axis move/combat, Allied move/combat, Axis 2nd move of armor, Allied 2nd move of armor, check supply. The new design manages to take a heck of a lot more space to restate the same rules. The three biggest design differences: ZOC, combat resolution and production. But annoying quibbles exist: mostly with that bane of every GameFix game thus far: mistakes in the rule examples that get you thinking: which is correct, the rule or the example? First of all, a example on bombing shows an Axis raid on Allied City A. (why not use an actual map example, dammit). Allied city A is a dot on the example map. The example makes much hay of the Allied losing a production point as the result of a successful raid. But in the rules, the raid would have to be against a "production city" which is not defined anywhere but apparently are those cities on the map with factory blobs next to their dots. So do all bombed cities lose production pts as in the ex or only the undefined production city. Another example about convoy attack has both Axis and Allied taking 2 loss points for each of which one must flip a unit to its reduced side. The Allies flip 2 fleets; the Axis flip only 1. Is there some special Axis convoy attack special rule reducing losses I missed? A third example: Much is made about land units being unable to cross all sea hexsides except at certain straits: in the Sea of Azov, the Suez Canal, the Dardanelles. The Denmark Straits are explicitly talked about as an exception but the Straits of Messina are nowhere mentioned. By the map, it appears to fall under the rule which allows land units to leap across without naval units. In another mistake, instead of having articles or design notes -- no notes are present in the mag by the way -- on the reverse mapside, you have key game charts. You definitely have to photocopy both back sides of the map page to be able to play the game. I must clarify: the map is bound into the mag. Another point: It is apparent that the order of combat resolution: land, sea and air is very important. But nowhere in the rules or sequence of play is any order clearly dictated. (The game rules constantly refer to the very detailed sequence of play.) The rules layout are also annoying. In previous games, the 2 column format allowed the rules to be outlined with examples and other visulal info in the parallel second column. Apparently, they ran out of space for rules for a series of extremely important rules are buried in the second columns. Now, don't get me wrong. Any grognard can (eventually) play this game. But as an intro game, it needs an interpreter. Onward. The rail move rules are a bit ambiguous. You can move land units by rail an unlimited number of hexes as long as you don't begin in an enemy land ZOC or enter one, and stay out of neutral countries. Also, there is no rail net in North Africa except Egypt. But rail movement allows some odd flexibility that doesn't "feel" right. For example, before the fall of Fr, Allied units can move from the Libyan border to Kuwait City in one turn. Also, the rules governing neutrals are buried throughout the entire game package, and mostly deal with the US and Axis powers such as It an Finland. What happens if Turkey is invaded by either side? Can neutrals such as Persia ally with one side? There are no Norwegian, Danish, or Irish units unlike the previous game. The ZOC rules are confusing as well. Land units have a one hex ZOC. Sea units have a three hex ZOC and air units have a 3 or 6 hex ZOC. The example shows a sea unit's ZOC extending out 3 hexes in all directions in all sea hexes. There is no such spot on the map. This raises the question: does sea unit ZOCs extend over land. Apparently so, by another combat example? What is the sea unit ZOC, a projection of power (I would supposed air power over hundreds of miles) or actual dispersal of units? And if it is air power, what about the Naval air units provided in the counter mix? The effect of ZOCs on supply is also unclear. Awww, I could go on, forever and I will eventually puzzle out the ambiguities. I've played the game three times already. You'll find combat resolution a bit odd as an experienced player. The combat rules are terribly written by the way. Total attacking combat values, check chart for that total, roll die, take defender losses if any. Then defender fights. Combat is simultaneous and voluntary. But the side with the lower loss is the winner. If loss is equal, high roller wins, if all is equal nobody wins. The effects of winning are varied: retreats and advancing and air/sea aid to as yet unresolved land combat, etc. The effect of air/sea values on land combat is not totally clear. Apparently, if there are offsetting units of the same type, they fight first and survivors add their values to land combat, but not in greater amounts than the land unit's involved... One more thing on my favorite target. Dave Wood takes 2 and 1/2 pages to review OTM. He spends 2 columns reviewing himself again. And guess what, he's doing great! Indeed, the section is titled: The Reviews Reviewed. You have to read it. As a source of exaggerated hubris, it is unbeatable. As someone who has reviewed and played On to Moscow, I find it very apparent that Wood never played the game but just looked at the components and read the rules. How can you review something you never play?! Remove all the garbage and there are some good comments buried in there: ie the standard game is useless, the design notes are key to understanding the game. He spends 2 columns taking about rules layout, but doesn't give you any details of play or information about distinguishing features or interesting caveats. At the very end, he says he likes it. And huzzah! An ed note mentions this is his last review column but he will be back from time to time "commenting" on various subjects... Doug Murphy (dmurphy@wppost.depaul.edu)